Conventional
journals’ truly unconventional “discoveries”
In recent years some truly unconventional “discoveries” have been published by some conventional journals such as CNS. For example, CNS recently promoted heavily iPSCs (induced pluripotent stem cells) as “ethical” and “safe” replacements for ESCs (embryonic stem cells) because they have believed in the claims that iPSCs are “indistinguishable” from ESCs and some iPSCs are even truly full pluripotent in a perceived sense that live mice have been derived “entirely” from these iPSCs. However, the reality is that not only distinctions between iPSCs and ESCs can be easily identified in those published papers making the “indistinguishable” claims but also the “final proof” for full pluripotency is a misrepresentation. The “gold standard” for full pluripotency actually used some early stage embryonic cells to support the generation of the “iPS mice” which are only chimera in composition. However, when these truly unconventional “discoveries” were challenged with facts and reasoning, all of those conventional journals promoting iPS research have so far taken a truly unconventional approach: totally suppressing the alternative views and even rejecting all the facts. See http://im1.biz/iPS.htm for history and the following links for more recent developments:
A Huge iPSC Hype Not Yet Seen through
http://www.im1.biz/displayimage.php?album=90&pos=4
From Reprogrammable
Mice to Man: Why Misrepresentation Cannot Lead to Real Application
http://www.im1.biz/displayimage.php?album=90&pos=1
The Mighty Misrepresentations
Preserve Problems for iPSCs
http://www.im1.biz/displayimage.php?album=90&pos=5
Are iPSCs really functionally
equivalent with ESCs?
http://www.im1.biz/displayimage.php?album=90&pos=6
Shi V. Liu